Concealed-carry fails in Illinois House

Concealed-carry fails in Illinois House

SPRINGFIELD -- A comprehensive concealed-carry gun bill fell seven votes short of passage Thursday night in the Illinois House, but was saved from defeat by a parliamentary maneuver.

The bill (HB997) needed 71 votes to pass and received only 64 votes. Forty-five lawmakers voted no.

But after the roll call was taken, sponsor Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, placed the measure on postponed consideration, keeping it alive for another vote.

Supporters, including Phelps, said they believed that earlier Thursday they had the votes to pass the bill, which was a response to a federal court order that Illinois pass a concealed carry bill by June 9.

"I think some people who would have voted yes voted no today just to send us back to the table to get more restrictions put in," said Rep. David Reis, R-Ste. Marie. "The were several there that should have voted yes, and told us they would, who didn't>

Phelps, when asked if he had been "betrayed," said yes.

"I don't want to give up names of colleagues but yes," he said. "I don't want to say all seven. There were some that I'm friends with that came over to me out of respect and said, "I was with you but I'm not going to be with you now."

Some of those lawmakers, he said, may be waiting to see if the Senate passes its own concealed carry law. The Senate is scheduled to be in Springfield next week, while the House is taking a one-week break.

"I still think that they think they have the whole month of May," said Phelps. "This is getting to the point where they'd better start doing something."

Phelps and other gun rights supporters noted, though, that they have the federal court order on their side.

"The main thing is this: you still have a court case that you have to deal with and June 9 is that cliff. So sooner or later they'd better get really serious because I don't think tonight they were serious," he said.

He said he would not give in on two key issues: a statewide concealed carry law with no opportunity for weaker local laws, and a shall-carry provision that would prevent local officials, such as county sheriffs, from deciding who has the right to carry.

"I don't know what else we can give on. We're not going to give up preemption. We're not going to give up shall-issue," he pledged.

In debate, Phelps called the measure "probably the strictest shall-issue bill in the country."

It required 10 hours of weapons training and payment of a $100 fee.

The legislation includes a long list of buildings and places where weapons could not be carried, including any university, college or community college building or real property.

It also included so-called "pass-through language," Phelps said, that would allow motorists to carry weapons in their car as they drive streets and highways that pass through campuses.

Generally weapons also would be prohibited in schools, day care centers, libraries, police stations, courthouses, bars, casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, casinos and other sites.

But concealed weapons would be allowed on mass transit, noted Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, an opponent of the measure.

"One major concern is that this bill widely expands the definition of a handgun. Under this bill a person could carry a handgun with a detachable high-capacity magaziner and a laser sight," she said. "This is not something I would want to see on a CTA train in my district.'

 Concealed weapons also would be permitted on playgrounds, she said.

"More guns are not the answer to our gun problem in Chicago," Cassidy said. "Please, let's get to the table. Let's get to a solution that respects the differences between our communities. There is a solution and there is time. This isn't soup yet."

Rep. Will Davis, D-Homewood, said the Phelps bill "goes way too far. And I hate to say it but unfortunately I think that this will actually get worse in our state before it ever gets better."

He predicted more violence "when this becomes law than anyone would imagine. And I hope that we're prepared, as a matter of fact I hope we're willing to get up and give moments of silence to all the individuals that will probably get harmed as a result of this open and unabridged concealed carry that we're going to have in the state of Illinois."

Sections (2):News, Local

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
mark taylor's ghost wrote on April 18, 2013 at 8:04 pm


Deal with it, Republicans. How's that super majority thingy working out for you at the state level?

How's it feel when legislative hurdles work against you?

Cue the right wing outrage and trillions of electrons spilled decrying the anti democratic nature of the super majority (if only at the state level and just in this one particular case, of course).


TheChiefLives wrote on April 19, 2013 at 7:04 am


This bill was sponsored by a couple democrats.

Libertarian here...not taking sides.  My only problem is that you have never stated a fact.  Not once, ever. 

Cue the Mark Taylor capital letters outrage with the hate speech against people with country or southern draws.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on April 19, 2013 at 12:04 pm

The fan of chief wahoo is sensitive about stereotyping whole groups of people...???

Perfectly played (let me know where to send your check).

And please do't act like you don't know this.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on April 19, 2013 at 12:04 am
Profile Picture

There's another Jerry Costello? 




Can we please, please stop electing/empowering people based on family ties? We already had one revolution about that.

screwtech02 wrote on April 19, 2013 at 7:04 am

Come June, they wont have to worry about ANY laws reguarding CC, then the WHOLE STATE becomes CONSITUSIONAL CARRY......   Let the clock run out......

GeneralLeePeeved wrote on April 19, 2013 at 9:04 am


shurstrike wrote on April 19, 2013 at 9:04 am


welive wrote on April 19, 2013 at 10:04 am

Go get my gun Ma Ohh wait better ask the goverment


Sid Saltfork wrote on April 19, 2013 at 10:04 am

Point well made.  Gun nuts do not follow the laws.  Whatever is passed will not be enough for them.  They will still disregard the laws.  They will rationalize their gun fantasies anyway they can do it.  They see themselves as the "good citizens" protecting the meek from the "bad guy criminals".  Yeah, criminals do not follow the laws.

yates wrote on April 19, 2013 at 12:04 pm

"Gun nuts do not follow the laws" So it's like thugs and such will? Careful Sid, that lefty fringe is showing itself again.

Sid Saltfork wrote on April 19, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Are you saying that gun nuts are right wingers?  Are you saying that "thugs" do not follow the laws so gun nuts do not need to follow the laws either?  The "lefty fringe" of over 90% of the citizens wanted some reasonable gun regulations which included comprehensive background checks.  Sorry, your right wing fringe is showing.

Bulldogmojo wrote on April 19, 2013 at 10:04 am

Aren't these 2A literalists great?

"A Minnesota radio host said he would like to tell the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to "go to hell" for infringing on his gun rights."


mark taylor's ghost wrote on April 19, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Another typical gun nut.

TheReplicatedMan wrote on April 19, 2013 at 1:04 pm

To Mark Taylor's Ghost: I am curious as to what qualifies someone to be a "gun nut" to you.

For example, if I possessed a legally-obtained FOID card, and owned a 1911Colt .45 caliber, semi-automatic pistol (just one) and two boxes of ammunition, would this make me a "gun nut"?

If not at this point, what if I then said "I believe I should have the right to conceal carry if I so choose, so long as the law allows it"?  Would this make me a "gun nut"?

The only reason I ask is because, if you would indeed consider me a "gun nut" because of either or both of the aforementioned items, then you are basically suggesting that if someone owns a firearm, he/she is automatically a fanatic.

If that is the case, then I would question who exactly you are to bestow the title of "nut" on anyone, let alone engage in discussion about gun control legislation with the implied belief that anyone who owns a firearm legally is an unstable vigilante.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on April 19, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Let's review your dazzling display of rhetorical acrobatics:

1. you ask me a question

2. you don't wait for an actual response from me but instead you assume an answer you seem to prefer I would supply

3. you work yourself into righteous moral indignation at the answer you prefer I would give but that I never actually, you know, said

4. you proceed to lecture me on the finer points proper debate

5. you say that I'm the real nut

Yah. No. Don't worry. Your credibility isn't shot to pieces. You're still perfectly placed to lecture someone else on the dos and don'ts of ethical argumentation.

In the remote chance that you might want to actually hear my answer to your question, no I don't think ownership indicates nuttiness. The fetishists, especially those who don't feel properly equipped to venture out of their front door without their metal piece, however, are quite nutty though.

highspeed wrote on April 20, 2013 at 9:04 am

 I guess that means there are alot of nutty police officers out there, or are they exempt because they`ve been trained?

Sid Saltfork wrote on April 20, 2013 at 6:04 pm

The article is about citizens being allowed to conceal and carry.  Police officers do not enter into the discussion.  Both anti-conceal and carry, and pro-conceal and carry want armed police officers.  The concern is regarding the wantabee police, conceal and carry zealots.  Based on the comments in the News Gazette, and the Springfield Register Journal from pro-conceal and carry zealots; I would rather take my chances in a public place with some bad guys than the conceal and carry zealots.

I do have a FOID card.  I do have a gun for home defense.  I do not plan on concealing my gun, and taking it out of the house with me when I go to the store or elsewhere.  I have not seen much armed violence in the area with the exception of areas where I do not go.  For those who feel insecure without packing a hidden gun; stop watching action movies, or tv programs for a while.  Reality is not that bad.

Gary48482 wrote on April 23, 2013 at 10:04 am

historic cancellation- Florida crime rate actually decrease with conceal weapons law

Non Liberal Illinois wrote on April 23, 2013 at 10:04 am

 Illinois is a state divided and Cook County is the reason.  There are 102 Counties in Illinois and one is garnering way too much power and control. Chicago will not do what is necessary to get control of the criminal gang violence that has claimed the lives of over 500 Chicago residents last year alone. Yet they wish to blame it on Indiana gun laws or anything else other than to admit that their 50+ year old gun-control laws have been an epic failure. Enough of the non-sense and lets get back to some common sense... Pass a Shall Issue Conceal Carry Law for Illinois with ALL of Illinois residents being able to apply for the same Rights and priviledges, if you meet the requirements, you should be able to have a statewide license... just like your Drivers License.

Sid Saltfork wrote on April 23, 2013 at 2:04 pm

I agree with you regarding Cook County's influence on legislation.  However, the reality is that Cook County has the majority of the population of the state.  The old saying that "75% of the state's population lives within 75 miles of the Sears Tower" still holds true.  As much as I would like to see every thing north of I-80 become North Illinois with every south of it becoming South Illinois, it is not going to happen. 

Chicago, and Cook County have a third world rate of gun violence.  Gun sales in Indiana is one reason for it.  If a loose conceal and carry is allowed for the entire state including Chicago; avoid the city, and the interstates until the fact of decreasing gun violence with conceal and carry is proven here in Illinois.  Everyone in Chicago is going to be legally packing a gun; and they will have them with them on I-57.  The strict enforcement of possessing an illegal gun needs to be enforced along with comprehensive background checks.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on April 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Most guns come from stores just outside the city limits. And if Chicago left became it's own state, the rest of Illinois would be known as North Arkansas and would have an even worse economy than that economic powerhouse.

Non Liberal Illinois wrote on May 01, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Well, Illinois has the worst credir rating and is far deeper in debt than any southern state, so what kind of a powerhouse are we? A deadbat state... is what we are called, because of Chicago and their politicians.

Non Liberal Illinois wrote on May 01, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Well, Illinois has the worst credit rating and is far deeper in debt than any southern state, so what kind of a powerhouse are we? A deadbat state... is what we are called, because of Chicago and their politicians.